Stanford references their annual game with Notre Dame as a must. Southern Cal does the same. Here again, Notre Dame is injected into somebody's argument that they are scheduling above everyone else, this time making a comparison to SEC scheduling.

A good statement to make with this coming out not long after (although it belongs more in the Big Ten discussion than here), covering the "peril" the last remaining regular rivalry Notre Dame has with a Big Ten school.

This is the new reality of working with Notre Dame. If *you* want to work with the Irish regularly, you're doing so on their time. Granted, it's not like the B1G is all that lenient on scheduling, either (you're theirs from October through November), but the reality of B1G-PAC's demise is that these two PAC schools would rather work with the Irish and their "quirky calendar" than work with their ten other conference-mates and midwestern equivalents.

The PAC's need for nine ended when they took Colorado and Utah, ending round-robin. Further expansion for the PAC, which is apparently a no-go without Texas, might necessitate that number, but at 12? They're the pioneers...they're the only ones doing it, and they're the ones stumped by it.

Is anything stopping the PAC, outside of the two California private schools, from designating BYU as their "independent major" of choice? Apparently, BYU isn't in the majors crowd to SEC and ACC schools...seems like both sides of the PAC-BYU relationship could stand to gain from such a rub. BYU's only getting five FBS home games it looks like so far...maybe someone elevating the Cougars' value could help BYU out a bit, as well as bolster PAC scheduling?

Stanford references their annual game with Notre Dame as a must. Southern Cal does the same. Here again, Notre Dame is injected into somebody's argument that they are scheduling above everyone else, this time making a comparison to SEC scheduling.

A good statement to make with this coming out not long after (although it belongs more in the Big Ten discussion than here), covering the "peril" the last remaining regular rivalry Notre Dame has with a Big Ten school.

This is the new reality of working with Notre Dame. If *you* want to work with the Irish regularly, you're doing so on their time. Granted, it's not like the B1G is all that lenient on scheduling, either (you're theirs from October through November), but the reality of B1G-PAC's demise is that these two PAC schools would rather work with the Irish and their "quirky calendar" than work with their ten other conference-mates and midwestern equivalents.

The PAC's need for nine ended when they took Colorado and Utah, ending round-robin. Further expansion for the PAC, which is apparently a no-go without Texas, might necessitate that number, but at 12? They're the pioneers...they're the only ones doing it, and they're the ones stumped by it.

Is anything stopping the PAC, outside of the two California private schools, from designating BYU as their "independent major" of choice? Apparently, BYU isn't in the majors crowd to SEC and ACC schools...seems like both sides of the PAC-BYU relationship could stand to gain from such a rub. BYU's only getting five FBS home games it looks like so far...maybe someone elevating the Cougars' value could help BYU out a bit, as well as bolster PAC scheduling?

The way that articles is written, Hollis is all in for scheduling Notre Dame when he can. If Delany still has hopes of luring Notre Dame, Michigan State isn't helping.Forking out $250,000 to cancel a return game to South Florida in order to schedule Arizona State sounds like waste, but maybe they see it as a profitable opportunity. What happened with all those desires to find Florida recruits?

The way that articles is written, Hollis is all in for scheduling Notre Dame when he can. If Delany still has hopes of luring Notre Dame, Michigan State isn't helping.

Do you think MSU's being flexible? Seven home games and the nine-game conference schedule is one thing, Hollis is not a fan of the 1-1-1 model ND would prefer:

Quote:

For MSU, the desire to keep the Notre Dame series alive will mean at least one neutral-site event and likely a big payday, but Hollis doesn't want it to become a habit.

"A game in East Lansing means a lot to a lot of people," he said. "There's employees, there's suite holders, there's ticket holders, there's the town, the hotels. It's a bigger thing to think about than just financial return to the athletic department."

Let Hollis champion the local economy of East Lansing with that view. I'm sure replacing the Irish with Sun Belt, MAC, and FCS fare will be totally epic and bring life and prosperity back to the Rust Belt. Totally awesome to see where the students are in that, too.

I saw this floating around various ND boards that cover ND's model. The three schools that stay on the schedule are ones who are flexible with ND's "constraints." From the above, I think that's why MSU (as well as Michigan and Purdue) fell off. The Big Ten schools are flexible...for the months of August and September. ND "needs" a little more than that (I thought ND gave the ACC the dates they were available, as it appears ND is giving the ACC some of that Aug/Sept time, too). I'm not certain those three are willing to be part of the Shamrock Series gimmick, but that's just another imposition Notre Dame expects others to yield to. Notre Dame gets to play the victim again, saying "nuh uh, we don't get seven home games" when they control the ticket flow and get the home designation for that game.

Quote:

Forking out $250,000 to cancel a return game to South Florida in order to schedule Arizona State sounds like waste, but maybe they see it as a profitable opportunity. What happened with all those desires to find Florida recruits?

B1G-PAC mattered more to the Big Ten than being in Florida does, apparently. On one hand, it's a better money game...ASU will travel, and MSU will come out to see this game. But, Florida is where you want to be seen, and you can do worse than USF.

It seems so strange to me that the PAC 12 wants to have games starting at 11 am PAC time instead of primetime games. That is the opposite of what every east coast conference is trying to do. They all want primetime games, not noon games. You can see this by how many conferences are willing to play games through the week on Tuesday and Thursday nights just to get games on TV in primetime.

As a Pac-10 Alum, I would suggest that there are options to splitting the old "Pac 8" or "Pac 10" schools equitably and with maximum appeal.

18 teams (the 12 they have plus whoever)

ArizonaUCLACaliforniaOregon Washington

in one half and

Arizona StateUSCStanfordOregon StateWashington State

in the other half, with the additional 6 teams split equitably. (Utah, Colorado, etc)

That is 7 games. Add their natural rivals, who are all in the opposite conferences puts you at 8 conference games. You could add one at random if you prefer a 9 game conference schedule.

1. The California Schools would never give up playing the three of them. This was made quite clear when the PAC-10 went to 12, and California got rights to play eachother every year.

2. Zipper-split is too complicated. There was a proposal to do a zipper-split when the PAC-12 was formed, and Larry Scott rejected it in favor of the current alignment. It was a thing of beauty. The PAC-12 rejected it.

Here's the way it would have worked.

You split the teams up into divisions, one traditional rival in each division:

Larry Scott dismissed this alignment and scheduling considerations for a simple north-south split with guarentees for the California Schools. There is no indication that he would consider a zipper-split if the PAC-12 would go to 16, or above.

This is a large reason as to why there really is no reason for expansion outside of Texas. Texas provides that counter-balance to California in population and recruiting beds to provide the east division with that balance.

Really, the only alignment that will work is an east-west split, with the west being the old PAC-8. And then after that

I think it's going to be one of those things where BYU will probably have support from the likes of the Arizona schools, Utah, and Colorado, but will never get in because the California schools rule the conference. It's way too much of a political thing to them.

I think it only makes sense for there to be an agreement in place that whichever Pac 12 school is left without a conference opponent that last week of the season play Notre Dame. It beats cramming your games into a shorter season and not playing anyone that last weekend.

BYU would be smart to position themselves to be "nimble" by 2026 or whenever the next possibilities for realignment arise.

PAC 12 seems to have NO PROBLEM scheduling BYU. BYU is desirable, they travel well, adn have a terrific following.

As far as BYU ever getting an invitation to the PAC, the bigger issue might have to do with OLY SPORTS, and BYU's refusal to play on Sunday.There may be a lot of TV money or convenience pushing the PAC to schedule basketball or other sports on Sunday, and BYU situation would keep complicating matters.

Stanford and USC are private schools, although not religious like BYU. Don't know how much bias exists toward BYU.

About 1-1/2 years ago Larry Scott was asked about expansion (he constantly is). He considers anything west o fhte Rockies PAC footprint, and he commented that the PAC presidents or AD's had discussed some possible FUTURE candidates.He specifically mentioned San Diego State, Boise State, and I think maybe BYU (not sure).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum